Cap Era Dynasties

[Mad Brills*]

IF the hawks win the cup this season, they will be a cap era "dynasty". Rather call them a great team.

 

[Kamina]

Anything short of three consecutive championship is not a dynasty. I'm not being uptight with the usage of that word. I actually think some people are trying to loosen up the usage and devalue the word so they can use it more often.

Not saying the Hawks aren't good, or trying to discredit them.

So the 80's Oilers don't count?

rekt

Anyway, I have no problems with giving Chicago the dynasty label if they win this year. That's 3 Cups in 6 years. Last time that was accomplished was Detroit 97-2002.

 

[WiscoBlues]

the NHL and the HOF recognize 9 dynasties:

Senators from 1919–27 (4 cups in 8 years)
Maple Leafs from 1946–51 (4 cups in 5 years)
Red Wings from 1949–55 (4 cups in 6 years)
Canadiens from 1955–60 (5 cups in a row)
Maple Leafs from 1961–64 (3 cups in a row)
Canadiens from 1964–69 (4 cups in 5 years)
Canadiens from 1975–79 (4 cups in a row)
Islanders from 1979–83 (4 cups in a row)
Oilers from 1983–90 (5 cups in 7 years)

so based on the precedent set by those teams, I think you would need to have 3+ cups over the course of 5 seasons and repeated at some point during that span at the very least to be considered a dynasty

the Hawks would be close if they win this year (3 in 6 years), but I still wouldn't consider them a dynasty because
1) even though the core is the same, about 2/3 of the players on the 2010 team are no longer with the Hawks (not that important but worth noting)
2) one of their cups came in a shortened season
3) they never repeated

either way it's still impressive, and it's probably the closest thing to a dynasty we'll see in the salary cap era

 

[WonderTwinsUnite]

I don't think the Hawks can be a dynasty in the typical sense, but in the cap era, yes they are. In seven years, 14 series wins and counting. But consecutive first round losses disqualifies them as a true dynasty IMO.

 

[Iceman]

I don't think the Hawks can be a dynasty in the typical sense, but in the cap era, yes they are. In seven years, 14 series wins and counting. But consecutive first round losses disqualifies them as a true dynasty IMO.

There is no such thing as a cap era dynasty. It's either a dynasty or not. Oilers were the last one.

A cup in 2010 and one in 2013 doesn't even get a sniff at the word Dynasty for me. Two back to back cups this year as well as next, then we can at least discuss it.

 

[WonderTwinsUnite]

There is no such thing as a cap era dynasty. It's either a dynasty or not. Oilers were the last one.

A cup in 2010 and one in 2013 doesn't even get a sniff at the word Dynasty for me. Two back to back cups this year as well as next, then we can at least discuss it.

If they win this year they are dynasty lite IMO. There are shades of grey in hockey.

 

[cbh]

Hell no. I wouldn't even call the Oilers of 84-90 (5 cups in 7 years) or the Maple Leafs of 62-64 (3 Cups in a row) Dynasties.

These are Dynasties:
Montreal Canadiens 1956-60 (5 Cups in a row)
Montreal Canadiens 1976-79 (4 Cups in a row)
NY Islanders 1980-83 (4 Cups in a row)

WS
New York Yankees 1936-39 (4 WS in a row)
New York Yankees 1949-53 (5 WS in a row)

 

[bigbuffalo313]

How can you justify the Oilers in the 80s not being a dynasty?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Hey, at least you admit that you're inferior. Hawks own the era, Kings are a clear 2nd....and that gap might grow larger if the Hawks win this Cup and beyond. Suddenly their cap issues aren't looking as bad anymore with Panarin and Darling looking like incredibly cheap and yet incredibly effective replacements for big $$ players. LA on the other hand...what on earth are they gonna do? Brown? Richards? Williams? Now add the issues with Stoll....what a nightmare....good luck, GKG!

It's almost as if the Blackhawks didn't have the same issues after 2010 and Tallon forgot how to work a fax machine. Good thing those pesky Hawks were destroyed by the cap and weren't able to retool to become a good team again!

 

[Church of Toews*]

It's almost as if the Blackhawks didn't have the same issues after 2010 and Tallon forgot how to work a fax machine. Good thing those pesky Hawks were destroyed by the cap and weren't able to retool to become a good team again!

problem is the players on the 2010 Hawks actually had value its gonna take a lot for a team to take the contract of Richards 6.5 mil for 6 more years and Browns contract of 5+ for 6 years is not looking to great either. its gonna take allot of convincing and retained salary to move those two guys. With Stoll and Williams likely not being resigned Kings are gonna have to hope younger guys in the system can fill the holes

 

[Brainiac]

Still amazed at how people get stuck in static definitions when the world is changing.

Winning 3 cups in 5 years nowadays is waaayyyy much more impressive than winning 4 or 5 in a row in a 6 teams league.

Let's assume the top tier (1/3) teams have an equal chance of winning the cup. Just for the sake of argument.

In a 6 teams league, it means you have 2 contenders (2/6 = 1/3). So winning 5 in a row is basically a 3.1% thing (0.5^5).

In a 30 teams league, it means you have 10 contenders (10/30 = 1/3). Totally different beast. Winning 5 in a row is a 0.1^5 = 0.001% probability. Basically 3000 times less probable compared to the O6 scenario.

And you can do the more advanced stats for 3 in 5 with top tier teams contending. The odds are way below 3%.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

problem is the players on the 2010 Hawks actually had value its gonna take a lot for a team to take the contract of Richards 6.5 mil for 6 more years and Browns contract of 5+ for 6 years is not looking to great either. its gonna take allot of convincing and retained salary to move those two guys. With Stoll and Williams likely not being resigned Kings are gonna have to hope younger guys in the system can fill the holes

Brown's here to stay for better or worse, the only real issue is Richards' contract, and people have been underestimating the Kings' system the same way the Blackhawks prospects have been overlooked (i.e. other than the kids on the roster, there are first and second round picks from as far back as 2010 still marinating in the minors getting ready to crack the lineup).

More than anything I'm just pointing out that right now everyone is focused on the sunshine and roses and ignoring the speedbumps. The Hawks have been the model of the league--throwing that in again because I don't want people to think I'm hating or just being a contrarian--but it's not as if they haven't had a share of concerns, concerns that were overcome, while some posters are discounting that other teams (of course LA, in my case) can do the same. Edit: I mean, if it's as simple as the other poster pointed out--let's ditch Crawford and plug in Panarin and Darling and everything is fine!--then the Kings can certainly just plug in Weal, Forbort, Mersch and call it a day, especially with Kempe, Zykov, and whoever this year's high pick turns out to be on the way!

 

[SLarmer28*]

Chicago Blackhawks

Five Conference Championship appearances in the last seven years and the Chicago Blackhawks aren't investigated for "puck deflation" either let alone caught videotaping the other teams practices.

Not bad, not bad at all.

 

[Brainiac]

All this talk about the definition of the word dynasty is pretty dumb, IMO.

Think about it for a second.

What is more impressive?

1-Rolling a die 4 times and geting the same number every time

2-Throwing the ball at the roulette and getting the same number 3 times out of 6 (assume a 30 slots roulette just for the sake of argument).

Just calculate the odds on that and you'll see.

 

[Church of Toews*]

All this talk about the definition of the word dynasty is pretty dumb, IMO.

Think about it for a second.

What is more impressive?

1-Rolling a die 4 times and geting the same number every time

2-Throwing the ball at the roulette and getting the same number 3 times out of 6 (assume a 30 slots roulette just for the sake of argument).

Just calculate the odds on that and you'll see.

You forgot to add a Salary cap on the Roulette

 

[zac]

There is no such thing as a cap era dynasty. It's either a dynasty or not. Oilers were the last one.

A cup in 2010 and one in 2013 doesn't even get a sniff at the word Dynasty for me. Two back to back cups this year as well as next, then we can at least discuss it.

The Hawks were a Joel Quenneville away from winning it last year. Him playing Handzus at ALL, let alone for the minutes he did was one of the worst (repetitive) coaching decisions in playoff history. He was the worst skater during the playoffs of any team. He was responsible for 4 goals against in games 2 (the first is what led to the onslaught) and 3 alone.

It's **** like this that makes me a Q detractor (along with the mishandling of Leddy). His roster management is abominable.

 

[Reality Check]

Chicago hasn't even been able to repeat as champions. Nor has been able to return to the finals the next season. Same goes for LA.

If the Red Wings still aren't considered a modern day dynasty after winning four(including a repeat) in the span of what...10-11 years?, then the same goes for those two until further notice.

 

[Church of Toews*]

Chicago hasn't even been able to repeat as champions. Nor has been able to return to the finals the next season. Same goes for LA.

If the Red Wings still aren't considered a modern day dynasty after winning four(including a repeat) in the span of what...10-11 years?, then the same goes for those two until further notice.

Difference is theres a thing called a salary cap while the hawks are doing this. Wings were able to keep Yzerman Lidstrom and the Russian 5 for quite a while Hawks were never given that luxury otherwise Ladd Byfuglien Campbell etc would still be on this team and the Hawks have made it 5 times to the conference finals in a 7 year span (2 years they didn't make it the roster was completely gutted) while the cap has been in place no other team has done that

 

[eliostar]

Chicago hasn't even been able to repeat as champions. Nor has been able to return to the finals the next season. Same goes for LA.

If the Red Wings still aren't considered a modern day dynasty after winning four(including a repeat) in the span of what...10-11 years?, then the same goes for those two until further notice.

The fact that it's so difficult to repeat should answer your question.
Today there are several teams capable of winning any given year, back then only two or maybe three teams would be contenders.
In the six team era Montreal , Toronto and for a time Detroit were far ahead of the competition.
Whatever you call it , Chicago has been impressive.
The competition is so fierce that the defending champs have a hard
time just making the playoffs, can't imagine the old Habs doing that.
I would argue that what Chicago did is more impressive than some
Montreal dynasties , considering they had little competition and they and Toronto had a monopoly on the best players.

 

[phosphene*]

Watch LA reload after a long offseason and win it next year after CHI wins it handily this year. They'll be hungry after just missing out on a wildcard spot.

 

[Stu Grimson]

Chicago hasn't even been able to repeat as champions. Nor has been able to return to the finals the next season. Same goes for LA.

If the Red Wings still aren't considered a modern day dynasty after winning four(including a repeat) in the span of what...10-11 years?, then the same goes for those two until further notice.

3 of those 4 Cups were pre salary cap. I also think the Hawks will win 4 Cups in less than it took the Wings to.

 

[Supertack]

Forget about the precursor of 'cap era', that doesn't matter. Many things have changed in all sports over the years, but being considered dynasties has not.

Their are 2 paths imo, both require 4 titles...

-Four consecutive titles
or
-Two consecutive titles twice in a 6 year span

Leafs: '47,'48,'50,'51 - yes
Habs: '55,'56,'57,'58,'59 - yes
Habs: '76,'77,'78,'79 - yes
Isles: '80,'81,'82,'83 - yes
Oilers: '84,'85,'87,'88,'90 - yes
Steelers: '74,'75,'78,'79 - yes
Celtics: '59 - '66 - hell yes
Bulls: '91,'92,'93,'96,'97,'98 - yes

Wings: '50,'52,'54,'55 - not so much
Leafs: '61,'62,'63, - not quite
49ers: '81,'84,'88,'89 - almost
Cowboys: '92,'93,'95 - no
Pats: '01,'03,'04 - no

Even if the Hawks won the Cup this year, it's not even in the conversation, .... and I'm a Hawks fan.

 

[Nordique]

You shouldnt be called a Dynasty if you cant even make the playoffs. Or barley make it in.

Exactly. You have to go back to the prior century to even find a Kings team that finished in the top 4....the defending Stanley Cup Champs finished 18th this season. The best they have finished overall this century was 7th in the league 3 years back. You need more than 2 cups to overcome those kind of regular season numbers if you want to be talked about as a dynasty. Winning the cup is HARD, winning 2 is incredible, but dynasty to me means more than that.

The Hawks are the only team in the conversation for me. A couple more SCF appearances with this roster and I'll absolutely call them dynastic.

HM: If SJ could do anything but choke in the post season, we'd be talking about them as well.

 

[Ducks Dynasty]

You shouldnt be called a Dynasty if you cant even make the playoffs. Or barley make it in.

Lol...agreed 100%.

 

[cbh]

"Winning 3 cups in 5 years nowadays is waaayyyy much more impressive than winning 4 or 5 in a row in a 6 teams league."
"In a 6 teams league, it means you have 2 contenders"


The fact remains that only one team managed to pull that little trick off once: Montreal (1956-60)


"basically a 3.1% thing (0.5^5)."

Do the math....

40 years 6 team league: 1 team, 1 time

40 years 12+ teams league: 2 teams, twice


"Five Conference Championship appearances in the last seven years and the Chicago Blackhawks"
"Not bad, not bad at all."

No, not bad. But no Dynasty.

The Atlanta Braves of 1991-2005 won 14 of 15 divisional titles, including 11 in a row, and 4 NL pennants in 5 years. Dynasty?
Impressive yes, but with only one WS championship to their credit, not what I would call a Dynasty.